On September 3, 2002, the United States filed an action under the Fair Housing Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act against Edward Rose & Associates, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The United States had already filed a similar lawsuit against ...
read more >

On September 3, 2002, the United States filed an action under the Fair Housing Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act against Edward Rose & Associates, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The United States had already filed a similar lawsuit against the same defendants on January 18, 2001, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The plaintiff, represented by the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, asked the court for an injunction to enjoin defendants from discriminating against persons with disabilities. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants discriminated against persons with disabilities by failing to design and construct covered multifamily dwellings and places of public accommodation in accordance with subsection 804(f)(3)(c) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.

The Defendants answered the complaints in the Michigan action and the Indiana action, and in both, denied any and all allegations of alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, the parties agreed that they should avoid further contested litigation and resolve the dispute without an evidentiary hearing or findings of fact.

On February 21, 2003, The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan enjoined certain of the Rose companies from proceeding with the construction and occupancy of nineteen apartment buildings at two complexes where the buildings, as designed, would have had descending steps to the entrances to the covered dwelling units directly across from the parking lot and the only accessible way into the covered dwelling units would have been by walking around the opposite side of the building and through the patio doors.

On August 25, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction. On December 7, 2004, the Court of Appeals denied the Rose Companies' Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

In the Consent Agreement entered in the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on September 30, 2005, the parties agreed that the Defendants would ensure the future design and/or construction of covered multifamily dwellings by the Rose Companies and/or the Architectural Defendants shall comply with the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Ac, 42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(1)-(3) and where applicable, the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§12182(a) and 12183(a)(1).

The Defendants agreed to $950,000 into an interest-bearing escrow account administered by counsel fro the Rose Companies for the purpose of paying settlement amounts to individuals alleged by the United States to qualify as "the Settlement Fund." Further, the Defendants were to pay the United States a sum of $110,000 as a civil penalty pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §3614(d)(1)(C) and 42 U.S.C. §12188(b)(2)(C)(i). Each party bore its own costs and attorneys' fees associated with the litigation.

Except for the complaints against Gary Weaver, the complaints in the Michigan and Indiana actions have been dismissed with prejudice as agreed in the consent order entered in the Untied Stated District court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The Indiana action against the Edward Rose & Company is located in our database at FH-IN-0004.